Snow Leopard's across-the-board leap to 64-bits, from the kernel to all of its bundled apps, will do more than just make more memory available. It will also have a significant positive impact on performance system wide, even more than the same jump to 64-bits in Windows Vista. Here's why.

Following the initial introduction to 64-bit computing leading up to Snow Leopard and a second segment outlining issues related to the amount of RAM that can be installed and actually used by the system, this third segment examines how much memory a specific app can use and how performance will improve with 64-bit addressing despite the additional overhead involved. A follow up segment will look at how the market for 64-bit apps is unfolding and how Apple is pioneering 64-bits on the desktop.

While the 4GB limit described earlier is only just beginning to affect mainstream users, there's another problem that prevents full use of the installed memory by any specific application. In fact, the real problem for RAM-starved apps is not how much RAM can be installed in a machine, but rather the limits on the amount of memory a single application or process can address itself.Â*

The 32-bit versions of Windows, Linux, and Mac OS X handled their 4GB limit differently. That means their transitions to 64-bits offer varying levels of improvement to their users. In 32-bit versions of Linux and Mac OS X, the kernel maps out a 32-bit, 4GB virtual memory space for itself and one for each app (or process). The virtual memory system shuffles memory around as needed to take best advantage of however much RAM is installed. The more RAM the better, of course.

In 32-bit Windows, every app only gets a 2GB virtual address space; the 4GB space afforded by 32-bit addresses is split with the kernel. By default, the split is right down the middle, so the app gets 2GB to work in while the kernel reserves the other 2GB. With a special setting, Windows can be adjusted to a 3GB/1GB split to give the app a bit more room, but there's no way to approach a full 4GB address space in Windows. This impacts every app on the system that wants to use a lot of RAM.Â*

The reason behind Windows' split memory allocation is performance. Windows system calls can address memory locations mapped to the application and to the kernel in the same breath, because the CPU can directly address the app's RAM and the kernel's RAM at the same time using a cached lookup table called the "translation lookaside buffer" or TLB.Â*

With More RAM Comes More Accountability

In contrast, while 32-bit versions of Linux and Mac OS X give each application its own full 4GB of virtual memory, those addresses share (overlap with) those used by the kernel's own 4GB space. That means the CPU's TLB can't maintain its cached addresses because there's no way distinguish between the two.

Every time the virtual memory system moves between the two address spaces, it has to flush the CPU's TLB. Every 32-bit system call flushes the TLB twice, repeatedly setting the cache back to zero and negating any of the performance it was designed to enable. On Windows, this only happens when the system switches between applications, because each application splits its virtual memory space with the kernel (above).Â*

Under the 64-bit Mac OS X Leopard, 64-bit apps get a massive virtual memory allocation that breaks out of the 4GB box. This allows 64-bit apps to occupy high address spaces while the kernel uses its own low addresses. Without any shared address overlap, the TLB doesn't need to be flushed and can therefore function as intended. That potential windfall isn't yet fully realized because Leopard's kernel and most Mac apps are still 32-bit (below left).

Snow Leopard will deliver both a 64-bit kernel and a full set of 64-bit bundled apps, erasing the entire TLB flush issue because the new kernel won't have to share any address space, even when running 32-bit apps (below right). This will benefit all 64-bit Mac users with a Core 2 CPU or better, even those lacking a Santa Rosa platform-style chipset, as being able to run 64-bit code and virtual memory is not tied to the amount of addressable system RAM.Â*

More, Better, Faster

Today's 32-bit Mac apps have access to more memory than 32-bit Windows apps, but incur the TLB flush performance hit every time an app places a system call, rather than only when switching between apps. With 64-bit apps, Leopard offers better performance with virtually unlimited addressing.Â*

In 64-bit Windows, apps finally break out of the 2GB limit (they now split the 16TB address space in half with the kernel), but there's no significant new performance advantage related to the TLB, because Windows wasn't dealing with that problem.Â*

Both platforms will benefit from being able to take advantage of the additional registers on x64 that are so desperately missing from the 32-bit x86 architecture, as noted in the first segment in this series. That factor is also why PowerPC G5 users won't see much performance benefit from general purpose apps ported to 64-bits; 32-bit PowerPC apps already have plenty of registers. In many cases, they will actually get slightly slower due to the extra addressing overhead. That's also a key reason why Snow Leopard will be Intel only.Â*

The dark side of 64-bit

There is also some additional overhead with handling 64-bit addressing on Intel, of course. There's also a "chicken and egg" problem related to developing a market for 64-bit apps before there's any significant installed base of 64-bit operating systems to run them. The mainstream Windows install is still 32-bit. Many 64-bit PCs are sold with and/or end up running 32-bit Windows, because Microsoft doesn't have one OS that runs all apps seamlessly.Â*

Windows 64-bit users complain about many 32-bit apps, drivers, codecs, and utilities not ready or not working properly. That includes Microsoft's own Office Document Imaging tools, Silverlight, and Windows Media Player. And because 64-bit kernels and apps won't work with 32-bit drivers or plugins, the lack of 64-bit Silverlight or Flash prevent many users from running the 64-bit Internet Explorer. Additionally, the way Microsoft delivered 64-bit Windows causes problems for app developers, as simple changes or customizations to the system can hose everything, as Adobe has warned the beta users of 64-bit Photoshop CS4.Â*

In contrast, all of Apple's Macs are now 64-bit and running a 64-bit OS, as there are no problems that prevent adoption of Apple's rather seamless 64-bit deployment. Except for, of course, a paucity of popular 64-bit Mac apps from everyone from Adobe to Apple itself. Apple will also need to provide 64-bit drivers and plugins for its kernel and apps, and get third parties to all do the same. The next article will look at the market for 64-bit apps, and how quickly Apple and third parties are going to be able to take advantage of the technical 64-bit lead on the Mac platform.

I have to wonder if there will be an outcry from users sold more RAM on PCs than they actually support.

At least maybe in the U.K they might negate all the advertising that even mentions the amount of memory available on a PC as "false advertising".

On a more serious note, I think most PC users are a bunch of dolts.
They don't really know what they are buying or why.
The problem will be glossed over by a simple "the extra memory you have, sets yo up to handle the new MicroSoft changes coming for 64 bit in the future.
Nevermind that by the time that stuff really gets it's act together the rest of your hardware is obsolete.....

At least maybe in the U.K they might negate all the advertising that even mentions the amount of memory available on a PC as "false advertising".

On a more serious note, I think most PC users are a bunch of dolts.
They don't really know what they are buying or why.
The problem will be glossed over by a simple "the extra memory you have, sets yo up to handle the new MicroSoft changes coming for 64 bit in the future.
Nevermind that by the time that stuff really gets it's act together the rest of your hardware is obsolete.....

Those sort of comments make me ashamed to be a Mac User. What incorrect and arrogant rubbish.

I have an iMac Core Duo (early 2006), the first Intel iMac's that where shipped.
Core Duo's still 32 bit ! (Core 2 Duo's 64 bit)
Does that mean that I'll have NO advantage of Snow Leopard because my CPU is still 32 bit ???
In fact it's possible that I won't be able to run 10.6 because it could be compiled for Intel-only in 64 bit ?
Or that it will suffer in speed (the reason they won't support 32 bit PowerPC anymore)

I have an iMac Core Duo (early 2006), the first Intel iMac's that where shipped.
Core Duo's still 32 bit ! (Core 2 Duo's 64 bit)
Does that mean that I'll have NO advantage of Snow Leopard because my CPU is still 32 bit ???
In fact it's possible that I won't be able to run 10.6 because it could be compiled for Intel-only in 64 bit ?
Or that it will suffer in speed (the reason they won't support 32 bit PowerPC anymore)

I'm totally in the black on this ... help :s

I too have a Core Duo based Mac, and I can't help interpret much of what is being said as Snow Leopard will be 64-bit only. If this is the case, then a Core 2 Duo will be the new minimum requirement. If I am interpreting this wrong, please correct me.

On a more serious note, I think most PC users are a bunch of dolts.
They don't really know what they are buying or why.
The problem will be glossed over by a simple "the extra memory you have, sets yo up to handle the new MicroSoft changes coming for 64 bit in the future.
Nevermind that by the time that stuff really gets it's act together the rest of your hardware is obsolete.....

I'll start with the arrogant part first: implying Mac OSX users/buyers don't have those problems.
I'll continue with the wrong part: assuming buying more than what you need is a PC user inherent problem, and that most PC user are ignorants. I'd say that most PC users I've met were very well informed, but could be misled by a vendor doing its selling speech, much like any market in this world.

I'll start with the arrogant part first: implying Mac OSX users/buyers don't have those problems.
I'll continue with the wrong part: assuming buying more than what you need is a PC user inherent problem, and that most PC user are ignorants. I'd say that most PC users I've met were very well informed, but could be misled by a vendor doing its selling speech, much like any market in this world.

This is not the 90s anymore.

Given that PCs hold 90% of the market, and almost everyone these days has a computer, I don't its that controversial to say that most PC users are completely ignorant of most of the technical issues surrounding 32/64 bits, memory etc. After all, 90% of the market encompasses a lot of grandmas.

That said, I imagine that the Mac market has a similar level of technical doltitude, especially given all the arty farty types that use Macs.

I'll start with the arrogant part first: implying Mac OSX users/buyers don't have those problems.
I'll continue with the wrong part: assuming buying more than what you need is a PC user inherent problem.

Now if you could get a bit of objectivity...

Ok, let me spell it out for you.
Almost ALL computer buyers do not have any idea what they are buying. Ok?
Stand back in a Best Buy, and LISTEN.
Go to any other store that sells computers, AND LISTEN.
People do not know what they are doing. They ask "what's the difference between these two computers", (a 600 dollar one and a 900 dollar one)
"That one is a better gaming machine, it has a better graphics card and more memory".
The customer says "Oh Frank plays a lot of games we need THAT one....".
Meanwhile, back at the house.... "Frank" is busy online playing games.
The graphics card is going to do NOTHING, the better cpu and memory mean NOTHING.
If they just upgraded the internet service to the higher speed, the gaming would be a ton better.
And you will have the guy tell you not to worry about the 4BG of ram, which can't all be used yet but because you've got a 64 bit machine you WILL be able to use it when the new OS stuff comes out. Of course, the world is buying Dell computers with the "Free Downgrade" from Vista to XP(normally a 99 dollar Value but a GREAT selling point to throw in for FREE throwing out Vista) so it isn't likely they will actually still be using the hardware with the 4gb of ram that can't all be used...... by the time they actually start running the OS that CAN take advantage of it.

The board here may be full of people that aren't dolts.
But the average person that buys a computer today, isn't like the people here.
(of course, excuse the people claiming they know how Apple stuff works and them quote problems that do not exist"PC-Fanboys")

Like it or not, Apple set up to avoid the problem of 57 different versions of one computer based on all the different stuff you can "slide in the slots". You CAN buy an Apple that allows you to do all kinds of stuff, and it is very expensive. IMO, the average dolt level person that walks in a Best Buy and says I need to upgrade will do just fine by buying standard configurations of limited combinations. (something Gateway built their entire business around in 1993)

A final thought:

<I'll continue with the wrong part: assuming buying more than what you need is a PC user inherent problem.>

I never said that.
But I will say this well enough, and with some arrogance so you will be happy, the problem isn't buying more than what you need. The problem is not knowing what you need and buying features that you either can't use (4gb of ram), or features that don't help do what you think they do(faster CPU when your drive speed is a bottleneck), or lacking features you need that you don't realize you need until a while after you get your computer home.(bluetooth or wifi support)

These problems are not limited exclusively to the PC world, but Apple has solved some of it by doing things like including wifi and bluetooth even if you don;t want it initially. (forcing the comparative cost up at times) If you want better features, they force you
into the higher lines. It may be true that you can mix and match the graphics, hard drives, cpu, memory, cache, and communication features, better on a PC than the MAC line. But that is not an advantage for the average dolt running into a computer store to buy a computer for the kids or the house. Those people rarely get the right help, and can NOT spend enough time with a sales rep to match it all up.

The Mini is what it is, if you think it should be more, you should be buying a bigger model in the MAC line. If you are so stuck in the PC world that you can't get that, then you don't understand the Apple model.
If you don't understand the Apple model, I don't know what you're doing spending all your time here.
If you do understand the Apple model and are just complaining they should be more like the PC world, then you're just one of the guys that have been saying it since 1984 and expecting it to EVER matter is foolish expecially after all this time.

I too have a Core Duo based Mac, and I can't help interpret much of what is being said as Snow Leopard will be 64-bit only. If this is the case, then a Core 2 Duo will be the new minimum requirement. If I am interpreting this wrong, please correct me.

That's how I interpret it. However, I don't think it will really be a bad thing to stick with Leopard on computers that cannot run on Snow Leopard as it's said to not have significant end-user changes. It's just shedding some fat going forward. It's also at least a year away.

I'll continue with the wrong part: assuming buying more than what you need is a PC user inherent problem

There is a HUGE difference between buying more computer than you need (which happens all the time, not just with computers) and paying extra for something you cannot use at all. I can't imagine too many people would be happy to learn that most of the extra 2 GIGs of ram they just paid $250 for at DELL's recommendation is almost completely unusable by the OS. Or to learn that the OS hides the fact that it's unusable.

Firstly is "desperately missing" a technical term? The lack of registers isn't as big a deal in x86 as it's made out to be.

There is no chicken and egg problem. Companies can roll out 64bit procs and OSes (as is being done) and eventually 64bit applications will arrive. You don't need 64 bit apps for 64 bit OSes, 32 bit apps run fine. Recompiling your app for 64 bits is not a big deal if it's been written properly, which of course many haven't. But the main point is that for most people and applications the memory limitation isn't one. Most apps don't have a pressing need for 64 bits.

And an important downside has been overlooked. 64 bit applications can take up a lot more memory since integers and/or pointers are twice the size. Depending on what the data structures look like it could take up to twice the memory.

There is a HUGE difference between buying more computer than you need (which happens all the time, not just with computers) and paying extra for something you cannot use at all. I can't imagine too many people would be happy to learn that most of the extra 2 GIGs of ram they just paid $250 for at DELL's recommendation is almost completely unusable by the OS. Or to learn that the OS hides the fact that it's unusable.

You're missing a more important point, they've already bought a machine that is largely unusable. Not being able to access the 2G makes little difference.

The one thing Snow Leopard does is finally break off the non-intel world.

Without commenting on what parts of the Intel world may be able, or not be able to fully exercise the 64 bit features from the article, this will be a milestone in 2009 that puts the power pc models off support. I have an older laptop that had a 40 gb drive. I upgraded it to 120 gb myself and installed Leopard and it's a great little machine. But Apple lets me know the end is with Leopard as I have it now. (still will get fixes, but the end is in sight)

I'll probably only be using it for another couple years and it'll finally die for me.
Still, it's got built in blue-tooth, and wi-fi, lots of disk speed and pretty good power. Had it three years, will have it over five years and that's a good value.

But Apple has signaled they won't carry the power pc code base any further.
This is a problem Microsoft has trouble dealing with, how to yank support for stuff that goes back a long way. It has been a nice problem to have, so much success that it's hard to change the under-pinnings in a radical way. But sooner or later, MicroSoft will need to do something bigger to their OS and it won't be easy. Apple has taken some heat, but I think most people understand they have to move on and have done so as painlessly as they could.

The MAC lives on.
The Mac lives on.
The mac lives on.
The line of computers formally known as "The Macintosh".....lives on.
Computers Apple sells live on.
PC's from Apple live on.
The computer line born of "Lisa", lives on.

If anyone feels that I am not properly referring to computers sold by Apple, or computers sold by what was formerly known as the "Apple Computer" company...... well you just be sure to let me know because I really care if my street cred is effected because I call it a MAC.....\

PC = Personal Computer
MAC = Media Access Control, as in MAC Address
Mac = short for Macintosh
Note the difference between acronyms and abbreviations. Its a touchy point for some

I'll just refer to the MAC as the newer version of LISA.
Then people can understand.
Of course, anyone that really thinks you walk into Best Buy to buy a Media Access Control from their computer reps is a bit too snarky anyway.....

Looking at all the technical specs available I believe that any user using less than the Core Duo 2 (64bit) will NOT be able to run Snow Leopard. 10.5 will be the last OS X version the first Intel Chipsets will run.....Looks like Apple will make the move to 64bit completely in the next version. PPC and Core Duo users will be left behind.

The MAC lives on.
The Mac lives on.
The mac lives on.
The line of computers formally known as "The Macintosh".....lives on.
Computers Apple sells live on.
PC's from Apple live on.
The computer line born of "Lisa", lives on.

If anyone feels that I am not properly referring to computers sold by Apple, or computers sold by what was formerly known as the "Apple Computer" company...... well you just be sure to let me know because I really care if my street cred is effected because I call it a MAC.....\

That should be "affected," not "effected." Now you have no street cred at all.

Firstly is "desperately missing" a technical term? The lack of registers isn't as big a deal in x86 as it's made out to be.

There is no chicken and egg problem. Companies can roll out 64bit procs and OSes (as is being done) and eventually 64bit applications will arrive. You don't need 64 bit apps for 64 bit OSes, 32 bit apps run fine. Recompiling your app for 64 bits is not a big deal if it's been written properly, which of course many haven't. But the main point is that for most people and applications the memory limitation isn't one. Most apps don't have a pressing need for 64 bits.

And an important downside has been overlooked. 64 bit applications can take up a lot more memory since integers and/or pointers are twice the size. Depending on what the data structures look like it could take up to twice the memory.

This isn't entirely true.

It's well understood that 32 bit Intel processors are short in regesters, that are also not wide enough.

One of the reasons wht Opertons, an Athlons were able to beat the Pentium back three years ago was because they used the more, wider register route in the designs, the same as the PPC. Intel's 64 bit chips have fixed most of the regester problems, whichh is acknowledged as bing one of the main reasons why Windows users will see speed increases in their computing using a 64 bit system.

64 bit Windows does not run 32 bit apps directly. It runs them in a compatibility window. Most inefficient. There are other problems relating to this.

This is why Windows users with only 32 bit apps don't run Win 64 yet, where Mac users dont have those issues.

Would you rather have an OS that runs 32 and 64 bit apps together, easily, or run one or the other OS's, where the 32 bit one can't run any 64 bit apps, and the 64 bit OS runs 32 bit ones poorly?

Looking at all the technical specs available I believe that any user using less than the Core Duo 2 (64bit) will NOT be able to run Snow Leopard. 10.5 will be the last OS X version the first Intel Chipsets will run.....Looks like Apple will make the move to 64bit completely in the next version. PPC and Core Duo users will be left behind.

There is a HUGE difference between buying more computer than you need (which happens all the time, not just with computers) and paying extra for something you cannot use at all. I can't imagine too many people would be happy to learn that most of the extra 2 GIGs of ram they just paid $250 for at DELL's recommendation is almost completely unusable by the OS. Or to learn that the OS hides the fact that it's unusable.

They can use it, just not in a single process. This is commonly mistaken, I dunno why. Windows NT kernel permits to and can use a shit load of memory (32Gb maxed from Intel CPU's MMU, but could probably handle more) in the system, and use it all. Just not in a single process. There are database centers using Windows Server (I'd personally prefer *X) with 16-32Gb of memory all around.
Also, please note that adding a flag in the boot.ini line (which, admitedly, most people don't and shouldn't know about) switch that to 3Gb for the process and 1Gb for the kernel. Dunno why Microsoft doesn't put that as a default, maybe they did with Vista...

On what I understand *nix/OSX approach for handling 64bit and 32bit apps running on the same box is much more elegant than Microsoft's 64bit OS versions.

As a photography with larger mega pixel sensors on the horizon, even the 50MP Canon sensor in development, the RAW files will be huge to work with. At the moment Aperture is such a resource hog, I reckon 64bit address space will be welcomed.

I too have a Core Duo based Mac, and I can't help interpret much of what is being said as Snow Leopard will be 64-bit only. If this is the case, then a Core 2 Duo will be the new minimum requirement. If I am interpreting this wrong, please correct me.

As I understand it, the Core Duo did not actually emulate two cores, or processors. From that standpoint is was more hype than help.

The Core 2 Duo, does actually perform as if you had two complete processors (cores) instead of one.

And yes, Core Duo users will be left behind in the 64 bit era.

Pity the agnostic dyslectic. They spend all their time contemplating the existence of dog.

I enjoyed the first and the second article on 64bit. But this one really confuses me!

1. How can Windows apps get several 4GB (-2GB for Kernel) virtual adress spaces? I thought without PAE, only one 4B adress space is possible.

2. Why is it not possible to deactivate TLB Flush under OS X?
Let's say i use only a very small application with no need for a hugh amount of RAM: As far as i understood, it gets its own 4GB adress space (altough it doesn't need it) and the CPU has to flush the TLB all the time.This would be serious waste of performance.

Pretty much true though. When asked, no one in the PC industry denies that the extra memory they are encouraging customers to buy, actually can be used in their 32 bit sytsems.

If you can sow that this isn't true, then please do so.

Depends 3GB came with my PC laptop. Ditched that and got 2x2GB for like $70 (total delivered cost), moved over to 64-bit Vista.

Now If I'd have stayed with 32-bit Vista, single app see's 2GB maximum, OS see's all 3GB but loses some RAM due either to integrated graphics (mine is dedicated) or 32-bit Window's addressing issues. The best case 32-bit Windows is ~3.2GB usable application RAM.

So the way I see it, at best you've overspent by $35 for 2GB or $17.50 for 1GB. In other words pocket change for a $1000 computer/laptop.

Also this is another AI POS article, a current Mac memory penalty resolved in 10.6 brings both OS'es to the same level of parity. In other words all Mac's currently have the problem that 64-bit/32-bit Vista currently doesn't have.

As to the ignorance of Mac versus PC end users, both are on average the same, but the community of knowledgeable PC users undoubtedly outnumbers the entire Mac OS X user community. That's a given. Heck the PC gaming community vastly outnumbers the entire Mac OS X community for that matter, and they're all gearhead's to boot.

I would even argue that Mac users are on average more clueless, since that's the main selling point of OS X, the seemless end user experience.

Signed,
A former three time Mac owner

PS - I might buy a Mac mini if an upgrade is in the pipeline, but it depends on if it has HDMI, eSATA, nos-soldered CPU/RAM. Not very likely. Because that's all that I could afford right now on my current fixed income.

Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!

I would even argue that Mac users are on average more clueless, since that's the main selling point of OS X, the seemless end user experience.

That may have been more true at one point but there seems to be a general trend of IT moving to Macs for their personal use. The reasons I've heard is that they had to deal with Windows all day that they just a machine that works when they get home, not one that needs constant tinkering to because it's Unix underneath they can get much more power from their system than from Windows.

Dick Applebaum on whether the iPad is a personal computer: "BTW, I am posting this from my iPad pc while sitting on the throne... personal enough for you?"

It's well understood that 32 bit Intel processors are short in regesters, that are also not wide enough.

One of the reasons wht Opertons, an Athlons were able to beat the Pentium back three years ago was because they used the more, wider register route in the designs, the same as the PPC. Intel's 64 bit chips have fixed most of the regester problems, whichh is acknowledged as bing one of the main reasons why Windows users will see speed increases in their computing using a 64 bit system.

64 bit Windows does not run 32 bit apps directly. It runs them in a compatibility window. Most inefficient. There are other problems relating to this.

This is why Windows users with only 32 bit apps don't run Win 64 yet, where Mac users dont have those issues.

Would you rather have an OS that runs 32 and 64 bit apps together, easily, or run one or the other OS's, where the 32 bit one can't run any 64 bit apps, and the 64 bit OS runs 32 bit ones poorly?

Having more registers is nice but not a huge win. You have to recompile software and the compiler has to be smart enough to allocate the registers efficiently. The number of registers is just of of many of x86's flaws, all of which contribute to the lack of performance.

Also there is a difference between architectural registers and physical registers. The processor aliases registers and there are many more physical registers than 8. This is a better solution which is why Intel implemented it. If registers were so critical Intel would have added them long ago, it's not like they are short of transistors. I don't know why having wider registers is going to make much difference except in a few cases (multiply?).

Depends 3GB came with my PC laptop. Ditched that and got 2x2GB for like $70 (total delivered cost), moved over to 64-bit Vista.

Now If I'd have stayed with 32-bit Vista, single app see's 2GB maximum, OS see's all 3GB but loses some RAM due either to integrated graphics (mine is dedicated) or 32-bit Window's addressing issues. The best case 32-bit Windows is ~3.2GB usable application RAM.

So the way I see it, at best you've overspent by $35 for 2GB or $17.50 for 1GB. In other words pocket change for a $1000 computer/laptop.

Also this is another AI POS article, a current Mac memory penalty resolved in 10.6 brings both OS'es to the same level of parity. In other words all Mac's currently have the problem that 64-bit/32-bit Vista currently doesn't have.

As to the ignorance of Mac versus PC end users, both are on average the same, but the community of knowledgeable PC users undoubtedly outnumbers the entire Mac OS X user community. That's a given. Heck the PC gaming community vastly outnumbers the entire Mac OS X community for that matter, and they're all gearhead's to boot.

I would even argue that Mac users are on average more clueless, since that's the main selling point of OS X, the seemless end user experience.

Signed,
A former three time Mac owner

PS - I might buy a Mac mini if an upgrade is in the pipeline, but it depends on if it has HDMI, eSATA, nos-soldered CPU/RAM. Not very likely. Because that's all that I could afford right now on my current fixed income.

Couple of things. First, I'm not a fan of downplaying the cost of being mislead.
If you have 3 GB in your machine and are talked into buying the 4th gig..... I don't really care how much you can say it didn't cost much. Even if it was free, when they have you put in 33% more memory and and you can use less than a quarter of what you're adding your application then I don't think that's good. That's usually the fault of the guy at the counter you're talking to and his lack of knowledge more than any one computer maker.

Second, if the AI article was talking about the current Leopard on the market then I might agree about your complaints. But the way I read this article, it's talking about Snow Leo and how it's DIFFERENT from the current Leo. Comparisons on how it works today aside, how it will work in Snow Leo are interesting.

Third, I'd be curious what actual 64 bit application you're running on your laptop that compelled you to run out and double your memory and completely change the OS to full 64bit. And I'd also be curious if you wrote off anything you had but can't really use in the "full 64 bit version of Vista".

4th: <As to the ignorance of Mac versus PC end users, both are on average the same>
Agreed, but I think pointing out that the windows world requires people to be knowledgeable and Apple has a lot of success with people that don't need to go there, well I'm not sure that's bad. In fact, earlier I was pointing out the need for people to become too well educated on the internal configurations of a pc just to avoid missing what they need or buying too much. This is a situation where Apple is getting a lot of their growth from solving the problem of understanding the hardware and software utilties, just to be able to run the application software you want. Apple is trying to limit users to only needing to run the software they want, and not all the icons in the control panel. You're right, but not sure that's a good thing for the pc world.

5th:The gaming world users do dominate or outnumber the Apple user base. That's true. But if you remove all the xBox users, and put those in the Apple camp because they actually are using old Apple hardware it does kind of take away from the pc numbers. (ouch)

6th: Again, saying OS X users are more clueless is not really a bad thing for Apple, or a good point for windows users. The one thing almost all windows users are in fact smart enough to know, is that you need to go out of your way and throw Vista away and get XP back on your new computer. And to the extent YOU may believe that is not true, you're going to have to explain to me if all those pc users are in fact so up to speed and knowledgeable then why does MicroSoft have such a hard time getting people to realize they don't need to do that? I mean really, if all those pc people are so smart and they are replacing Vista with XP, either they aren't as smart as you say they are or Vista is not very good!

I really care if my street cred is effected because I call it a MAC.....\

Historically, the only people writing "MAC" on this forum were ignorant PC trolls. As such, I (and possibly others) began assuming posts containing "MAC" were written by ignorant trolls and started ignoring them. I figured I'd let you know so you could write it properly instead of looking like an ignorant troll.

The only thing thing worse than an ignorant troll is an informed troll who intentionally acts ignorant. You've been informed, you can call it what you want.

Quote:

5th:The gaming world users do dominate or outnumber the Apple user base. That's true. But if you remove all the xBox users, and put those in the Apple camp because they actually are using old Apple hardware it does kind of take away from the pc numbers.

Unfortunately, the reality is that PC users should be added to X-Box 360 users because the development environments are similar, regardless of hardware differences. This also helps to lock developers into MS APIs instead of cross-platform technologies.

5th:The gaming world users do dominate or outnumber the Apple user base. That's true. But if you remove all the xBox users, and put those in the Apple camp because they actually are using old Apple hardware it does kind of take away from the pc numbers. (ouch)

What are you talking about??? XBox don't use any pieces manufactured by Apple.